Legal relationship

Last updated

A legal relationship or legal relation is a legal connection between two persons or other entities. [1] It may also be known, particularly in the law of India, as a jural relationship. A legal relationship may exist, for example, between two individuals or between an individual and a government. Legal relationships often imply rights and obligations. Examples of legal relationships include contracts, [2] marriage, and citizenship. [3] As with other fundamental legal concepts, many different ways of defining and classifying legal relationships have been put forward. [4]

Contents

Being able to enter into legal relations is a defining characteristic of legal personhood. [5] For example, prior to the abolition of coverture in the United States and United Kingdom, married women lacked the ability to enter into legal relations. [6] The same was true of enslaved people under various forms of slavery, including in ancient Rome and the United States before 1865. [6] The connection between legal personhood and the ability to enter into legal relations, or particularly the ability to have legal rights, first emerged in Renaissance humanism and was later developed by civil law scholars such as Carl von Savigny. [7]

In the civil law tradition, the concept of a legal bond (iuris vinculum) was used in the Institutes of Justinian to define an obligation as "a legal bond, with which we are bound by a necessity of performing some act according to the laws of our state." [8] The metaphor of the "legal bond", also translated as "legal shackle" or "legal chain", remains fundamental to the law of obligations. [9]

In common law jurisdictions, to create a contractual relationship, three elements are necessary: offer and acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. Because of this third requirement, an agreement may be unenforceable if a court believes that reasonable people would not have intended it to be legally binding, such as is often the case in social arrangements and domestic arrangements. [10]

Theories

In the 19th century, the influential Pandectist legal theorist Carl von Savigny divided legal relationships into four categories: property, obligations, inheritance, and family law. [11] Savigny thus included legal relations between persons and things, but did not consider the relations between persons and governments to be legal relations. Under Savigny's system, the question of choice of law became a question of which country was the seat of the relevant legal relationship (Sitz des Rechtsverhältnisses). [12] [13]

Savigny's legal theory, of which the theory of legal relations was a part, influenced not only the Continental legal tradition but British and American legal thought as well. [14] Theories of legal relations, however, did not develop in English-speaking legal systems until the 20th century. [15]

German jurist Gustav Radbruch, writing in 1903, considered the correlative relationship between right and duty to be the "abstract legal relationship". [16] In Radbruch's approach, a lowest-order legal relationship is, for example, a seller's right to the purchase price correlated to the buyer's duty to pay that price. [17] The buyer's right to the goods and the seller's duty to deliver them complete these low-order legal relationships into the composite legal relationship of the sales contract, which in turn is included in the highest-level legal relationship of private law. [18]

Working in the Marxist legal tradition, Soviet legal scholar Evgeny Pashukanis described capitalist society as "an endless chain of legal relationships." [19] He rejected the idea of legal relationships being derived from law, arguing instead that legal relationships were derived from economic relationships, and that even public law ultimately derived its structure from economic relationships. [19] [20] Pashukanis contended that because legal relations arose from bourgeois capitalist material relations, it would be necessary to maintain them for some time under the New Economic Policy, but they would ultimately be replaced by the non-law of socialism. [21] This position was influential in the 1920s but led to his condemnation in the Stalinist purge of 1937. [22]

Hohfeldian analysis

A systematic theory of legal relations was put forward by the US legal scholar Wesley Hohfeld in 1913 [23] and remains widely influential. [24] In Hohfeld's framework, there are four types of legal relations (or "jural correlatives"), between: right (or claim) and duty; privilege (or liberty) and no-right; power and liability; and immunity and disability. [25]

In each case, one person has the first position and another person has the second position. [25] If someone has a "right" or "claim" under Hohfeld's system, someone else has a duty to act in accordance with that right. If someone has a "privilege", someone else has a "no-right", because they have no right (or claim) to prevent the first person from acting. For example, in contract litigation, if a plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages, the defendant gains a privilege not to pay those additional damages, and the plaintiff correspondingly has no claim to such damages. [26]

Likewise, someone with a power can change a legal relation of someone else, who has a liability. Someone with an immunity cannot have a given legal relation changed by someone else, and that second person has a disability. [25]

Although originally intended to describe legal relations in private law, Hohfeld's framework has been extended to constitutional law, notably by the German scholar Robert Alexy. [27]

  1. Social relations arise only between people and their associations and are directly related to their activities and behavior.
  2. Ideological relations pass through the minds of people, where a model of future relations is formed because of existing universal values and social priorities.
  3. Legal relations act as a legal expression of economic, political, family, and other relations.
  4. Legal relations arise, cease or change based on legal norms that affect people's behavior and are implemented through it.
  5. The subjects of legal relations are interconnected by subjective rights and legal obligations. The parties in legal relations act as authorized and obligated persons, where the rights and interests of some persons can be realized through the performance of duties by others.
  6. The mutual behavior of participants in legal relations is individualized and clearly defined. The subjects of legal relations (government agencies, individuals, or legal entities), as a rule, are known in advance, their actions are coordinated before the beginning of these relations, which is not the case in other social relations.
  7. The volitional nature of legal relations is because they arise and are realized based on the will of at least one of their participants, necessarily passing through their consciousness and expressing their will.
  8. Legal relations are protected by the state.

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Property</span> Entity owned by a person or a group of people

Property is a system of rights that gives people legal control of valuable things, and also refers to the valuable things themselves. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property may have the right to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away, or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things, as well as to perhaps abandon it; whereas regardless of the nature of the property, the owner thereof has the right to properly use it under the granted property rights.

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings, has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

The right of self-defense is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friedrich Carl von Savigny</span> German jurist and historian (1779–1861)

Friedrich Carl von Savigny was a German jurist and historian.

In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on. The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are "persons" legally speaking, but they are not people in a literal sense.

A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility. The defining features of personhood and, consequently, what makes a person count as a person, differ widely among cultures and contexts.

Public law is the part of law that governs relations and affairs between legal persons and a government, between different institutions within a state, between different branches of governments, as well as relationships between persons that are of direct concern to society. Public law comprises constitutional law, administrative law, tax law and criminal law, as well as all procedural law. Laws concerning relationships between individuals belong to private law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-ownership</span> Concept of property in ones own person

Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own body, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity meaning the exclusive right to control one's own body including one's life, where 'control' means exerting any physical interference and 'exclusive' means having the right to install and enforce a ban on other people doing this. Since the legal norm of property title claim incapacitates other people from claiming property title over the same resource at the same time, the right to control or interfere with one's own body in any arbitrary way is secured. Anarcho-capitalism defines self-ownership as the exclusive right to control one's body as long as the owner does not aggress upon others, leading to the concept of the sovereign individual. Minarchism considers self-ownership to mean the exclusive right to control one's body insofar considering action between inhabitants and not involving the state, making it roughly a pacifist morality only among inhabitants. Self-ownership is a central idea in several political philosophies that emphasize individualism, such as libertarianism and liberalism.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld was an American jurist. He was the author of the seminal Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (1919).

Correlative is the term adopted by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld to describe the philosophical relationships between fundamental legal concepts in jurisprudence.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

Commodity form theory is a theory of jurisprudence advanced by the Soviet legal theorist Evgeny Pashukanis. The theory argues that the legal form is the parallel of the commodity form under capitalist society.

The law of Germany, that being the modern German legal system, is a system of civil law which is founded on the principles laid out by the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, though many of the most important laws, for example most regulations of the civil code were developed prior to the 1949 constitution. It is composed of public law, which regulates the relations between a citizen/person and the state or two bodies of the state, and the private law, (Privatrecht) which regulates the relations between two people or companies. It has been subject to a wide array of influences from Roman law, such as the Corpus Juris Civilis, to Napoleonic law, such as the Napoleonic Code.

A juridical person is a human legal person that is not a single natural person but an organization recognized by law as a fictitious person such as a corporation, government agency, non-governmental organisation, or international organization. Other terms include artificial person, corporate person, judicial person, juridical entity, juridic person, or juristic person. A juridical person maintains certain duties and rights as enumerated under relevant laws. The rights and responsibilities of a juridical person are distinct from those of the natural persons constituting it.

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder. The distinction between these two senses of "rights" originates in American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis thereof in his seminal work Fundamental Legal Conceptions, As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (1919).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evgeny Pashukanis</span>

Evgeny Bronislavovich Pashukanis was a Soviet legal scholar, best known for his work The General Theory of Law and Marxism.

<i>Murphy v Brentwood DC</i>

Murphy v Brentwood District Council[1991] UKHL 2, [1991] 1 AC 398 was a judicial decision of the House of Lords in relation to recovery for pure economic loss in tort.

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

Legal evolution is a branch of legal theory which proposes that law and legal systems change and develop according to regular, natural laws. It is closely related to social evolution and was developed in the 18th century, peaking in popularity in the 19th century before entering a prolonged hiatus. Legal evolution saw a revival at the end of the 20th century and is continued in multiple contemporary theories. Theories of legal evolution use a variety of methodologies, including elements of sociological, historical, philosophical approaches.

<i>Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology</i> 1897 book by Edward Payson Evans

Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology is an 1897 book by the American scholar and early animal rights advocate Edward Payson Evans, which argues for the use of animal psychology as the basis for animal rights in the historical evolution of ethics.

References

  1. ↑ Garner, Bryan, ed. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.). p. 2625.
  2. ↑ Corbin, Arthur L. (January 1917). "Offer and Acceptance, and Some of the Resulting Legal Relations" (PDF). Yale Law Journal. 26 (3): 169–206. doi:10.2307/786706. JSTOR   786706 . Retrieved 2022-06-24.
  3. ↑ Maatsch, A. (2011). Ethnic Citizenship Regimes: Europeanization, Post-war Migration and Redressing Past Wrongs. Springer. p. 3. ISBN   9780230307391. Defined narrowly, citizenship concerns the legal relation between an individual and a state, enshrined in domestic law.
  4. ↑ Kocourek, Albert (April 1920). "Various Definitions of Jural Relation". Columbia Law Review. 20 (4): 394–412. doi:10.2307/1111982. JSTOR   1111982. An inspection of the literature, and it is abundant, which attempts in one way and another to provide an understandable definition of jural relation, is likely to evoke the opinion expressed by Jhering in a similar connection-that the pursuit is a trading of silver dollars for paper dollars.
  5. ↑ Gindis, David (2016). "Legal personhood and the firm: avoiding anthropomorphism and equivocation". Journal of Institutional Economics. 12 (3): 499. doi:10.1017/S1744137415000235. hdl: 2299/18254 . S2CID   146162407.
  6. 1 2 Gindis 2016, p. 504.
  7. ↑ Kurki, Visa A. J. (2019). Theory of Legal Personhood. Oxford University Press. p. 47. ISBN   9780198844037.
  8. ↑ J.B.M. (1890). "OBLIGATIONES". In Smith, William; Wayte, William; Marindin, G.E. (eds.). A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
  9. ↑ Samuel, Geoffrey (2013). Law of Obligations & Legal Remedies. Routledge. pp. 2–3. ISBN   9781135342111.
  10. ↑ "Promises of Silence: Contract Law and Freedom of Speech". Cornell Law Review. 82 (2). at "3. Lack of Objective Intent to Make a Legally Binding Contract" and footnote 97. 1998.
  11. ↑ Savigny, Friedrich Carl von (1849). System des heutigen Römischen Rechts (in German). Vol. 8. § 345. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  12. ↑ Savigny 1849, § 361.
  13. ↑ Peari, Sagi (2014). "Savigny's Theory of Choice-of-Law as a Principle of 'Voluntary Submission'". The University of Toronto Law Journal. University of Toronto Press. 64 (1): 131. JSTOR   24311926.
  14. ↑ Kurki 2019, p. 49 n.92.
  15. ↑ Kocourek 1920, p. 395.
  16. ↑ Radbruch, Gustav (1903). Der Handlungsbegriff in seiner Bedeutung für das Strafrechtssystem: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lehrer von der rechtswissenschaftlichen Systematik (in German). J. Guttentag.
  17. ↑ Radbruch 1903, p. 51.
  18. ↑ Radbruch 1903, pp. 51–52.
  19. 1 2 Pashukanis, Evgeny (1924). "CHAPTER III: Relationship and the Norm". General Theory of Law and Marxism. Translated by Peter B. Maggs. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
  20. ↑ Tom Campbell (2004). Prescriptive Legal Positivism: Law, Rights and Democracy. Psychology Press. p. 160. ISBN   9781844720231.
  21. ↑ Bodenheimer, Edgar (March 1949). "Some Recent Trends in European Legal Thought -- West and East". The Western Political Quarterly. 2 (1): 51. doi:10.2307/442333. JSTOR   442333.
  22. ↑ Bodenheimer 1949, p. 51.
  23. ↑ Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb (November 1913). "Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning". The Yale Law Journal. 23 (1): 16–59. doi:10.2307/785533. JSTOR   785533.
  24. ↑ Markovich, Réka (2020). "Understanding Hohfeld and Formalizing Legal Rights: The Hohfeldian Conceptions and Their Conditional Consequences". Studia Logica. 108: 129–158. doi: 10.1007/s11225-019-09870-5 . S2CID   255072108.
  25. 1 2 3 Nyquist, Curtis (2002). "Teaching Wesley Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations". Journal of Legal Education. 52 (1/2): 240. JSTOR   42893752.
  26. ↑ Nyquist 2002, p. 247.
  27. ↑ La Torre, Massimo (2007). Constitutionalism and Legal Reasoning. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN   9781402055959.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.